Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

[capthook]

However, the arrangement of coils/mags in the Muller setup requires rectification of each coil individually.  So instead of a 1.4V drop in a single phase, you have 15 x 1.4V = 21V drop to rectify each of the 15 coils individually.
While you will see a theoretical output increase due to the greatly reduced cogging, IMO there is no way it will makeup for the 21V dropped rectifying.
If a geometry was developed that utilized the Muller idea, but allowed for 3-phase output, then it might be a different story!

Lenz Free Coils:  Several proposed coils designs to negate Lenz  http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelka/ttf2/fields8.htm

   Fields 8-10 discusses the proposed designs.  I would be interested on comments    from others on these!

Has anyone read this and have any comments on it?

Or tried the Muller 'cone' windings?

[capthook]

So if we can get the field generated in the coil to remain CONTAINED IN THE COIL rather than reaching out to the passing magnet, this would negate the magnet drag/Lenz's Law.

The fields 8-10 discusses something along these lines.

What if the coils field was contained with a magnet?

1. As a N magnet passes a coil, a S field is induced in the coil, causes drag from the attraction of the two fields..
2. If a small magnet was placed at the backend of the coil with the N face towards the coil, the S field of the coil is now attracted to the backing magnet, rather than the passing magnet, eliminating the drag.
3. The airgap between the backing magnet and the coil end would have to be smaller than the airgap between the coil and the passing magnet so that the coils flux takes the path of least resistance - the backing magnet.
4.  What if the coil core was an actual magnet?
5. The increased airgap between the coil and the passing magnets will reduce output, but increase efficiency.

Or is this going to kill/cancel ALL output?

Containing the coils induced field away from the passing magnet is the key to reducing/eliminating Lenz IMO.

[hoptoad]

While you will see a theoretical output increase due to the greatly reduced cogging, IMO there is no way it will makeup for the 21V dropped rectifying.
If a geometry was developed that utilized the Muller idea, but allowed for 3-phase output, then it might be a different story!

Yep ... there's always a price, no matter what the configuration. 3 - phase is definitely one positive way to go.

Though your 21 volt drop would only occur if you were connecting the o/p of each rectifier in series to attain the voltage you are after.

If your coils are high voltage coils to start with, o/p say 240 v peak to peak, and each coil is rectified with rectified outputs paralleled, the 1.4 volts x whatever current for each coil will amount to a negligible power loss overall. E.g. at 240 volts with 1 amp total consumption from a combined output of 15 rectified coils in parallel, the O/P will be 240 watts - (1.4 v x 1 amp(total) = 1.4 watts) = 238.6 watts. Actually, the true RMS power value would be less than this but you get the picture. The total percentage of power lost is small. The power lost in each rectifier will be 1/15 of the total loss, but there would indeed still be a loss associated with it.

But the odd/even motor will run more quietly, and if you have to work in an environment where electrical motor noise is loud and prominent, this factor gains a higher priority in the list of things to consider.

In generating systems for modern aircraft, the electrical output versus acoustic dissonance characteristics are a big consideration. This is because they run their systems at a higher frequency in order to use smaller systems to produce the amount of power needed. This decreases the weight factor associated with the generating system. There is a trade off between total electrical efficiency, weight, and rigid safety requirements. Systems that appear to be prone to acoustic vibration dissonance are quickly struck off the suitability list. Thats because most of the internal bracing struts in aircraft are made from aluminium which quickly degrades from prolonged exposure to localized high frequency vibrational stress.

Cheers

[capthook]

A 240 volt coil - Yowza!  Are you building a coal fired mega-watt power plant? 

The benefit of the Muller design is its geometry.  The pitfall of the Muller design is..... its geometry.

From Bill Muller:

"By its geometry, this device produces 15 distinct Phases of AC at its output with no perfectly matching opposing phases.
Therefore, in order to merge the outputs together, the AC PHASE differences must be eliminated by rectification to DC.
Each generator output must be Fullwave Rectified to DC before being merged with the other outputs"

And each coil is wound for 12 volts @ 5 amps.
12V x 5A = 60 watts x 15(coils) = 900 watts potential output.

But each coil has to be sent through a rectifier:

12V - 1.4V = 10.6V
10.6V x 5A = 53W x 15 = 795W

900W - 795W = 105W rectifier loss!

The unknown (to me) is how many 'watts' have you gained by reducing the cogging using this method?
Unless you can decrease the rectifier losses by improving the geometry to merge the output into phases, I see it being a net system loss.

(P.S.  One could use individual Schottky diodes in place of the silicon rectifiers for a .7V drop compared to the 1.4V drop - a 50% savings.  Now the rectifier losses are down to 53W.  But still, do you 'gain' more than '53W' by reducing the cogging?  What IS the potential gain of the low-cogging?)

[Nali2001]

Well magnetic cogging is in 'theory' not a loss... You see, if the rotor magnet is approaching the stator core finger, it is attracted and that attraction is a 'free rotor momentum gain'. Now if that rotor wants to rotate onward it has to break free from the attraction to the stator, and that is a 'momentum loss'. All in all you can see that there is a gain and a loss happing which is in theory that same, and results in zero net gain or loss. Another way of looking at it is when you ride you bicycle up a hill. The energy you put into climbing the hill is the same you get back when you go down the hill. Assuming the hill is on both sides equal.

When a generator gets up to speed the cogging is neglectable anyway. But all is never perfect so if you have a choice of making your gen in a no-cogging geometry you should do so.

Steven